Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple

Get a refill.. by Drafell · 2012-05-31 02:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seems like a pretty redundant ban to me. Most places offer free refills on soda...

Re:Get a refill.. by tronbradia · 2012-05-31 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a nudge. The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want. A variety of studies have shown that people's eating behavior are highly impacted by serving size.
Re:Get a refill.. by Ndkchk · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 2

Think of the calories you'll burn walking to the counter! Those pounds will just melt away!
Re:Get a refill.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the imaginary humans-are-rational-animals land, I'd agree with you.

Empirically, I'd strongly suspect that only relatively strong tugs of either appetite or repletion drive most people to either get a refill or discard a partially full cup. You just sort of suck on the straw until the fluid stops coming out, without thinking about it much, across a surprisingly large set of cup sizes.

The consumer psychology research people seem to consistently be able to pull hilarious stunts in changing the amounts people eat just by changing their cutlery, or using different sized plates, or changing whether or not the waiters clear away used dishes in an 'all-you-can-eat' scenario...
Re:Get a refill.. by aeortiz · 2012-05-31 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Its basic psychology, if given larger containers, people consume more.
Cornell University did a study in a Philadelphia movie theater with stale popcorn. Given the larger containers, people still ate more of it, even though it was like eating styrofoam.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16053812
Re:Get a refill.. by ArsonSmith · 2012-05-31 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a nudge, but nothing to do with curbing eating habits and much more to do with getting people used to government intervention in their every day life.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Get a refill.. by lxs · 2012-05-31 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I would be very annoyed if your fat ass got up four times during the first half of the movie.
Sincerely,
The guy sitting next to you.
Re:Get a refill.. by alphatel · 2012-05-31 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's a nudge. The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want. A variety of studies have shown that people's eating behavior are highly impacted by serving size.
Don't worry more nudges to come.
Next the city will levy fines on all 8-slice pizzerias. A new mandate will dictate they be cut into 16 slices to reduce the amount of fat consumed by New Yorkers.

Thank god for the law-by-fiat of the Mayor and his self-appointed Health Dept. No need for a City Council when you can just bypass them.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Re:Get a refill.. by milkmage · 2012-05-31 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative

it is.. but it's a specific offering by 7-11 (convenience store chain)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Eleven
Among 7-Eleven's offerings are private label products, including Slurpee, a partially frozen soft drink introduced in 1967,[15] and the Big Gulp introduced in 1980[15] that packaged soft drinks in large cups ranging in size from 20 to 64 US fluid ounces (0.59 to 1.9 liters).
absurd.
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double_big_gulp.jpg
Re:Get a refill.. by David_Hart · 2012-05-31 03:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder if this cultural, learned, or genetic behavior?
The reason why I ask is because I find the serving sizes for just about everything in the US to be too big. I grew up in Canada and moved to Boston about 12 years ago. I find that, when I go out to eat, I usually have food left over. I sometimes get flack from my friends about wasting food, but the way I see it is that I stop eating when I've had enough. I never continue to eat just to clean off the plate. The same applies to soda and other drinks.
So, for me, serving size doesn't matter, I simply stop when I've had enough.
Re:Get a refill.. by jdgeorge · 2012-05-31 03:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't get it. This is a proposal that curbs the ability of Machiavellian vendors to profit because of people's misunderstanding of basic economics. It's a regulation of the vendors, not the buyers.
Here's how it works:
Most people don't really want the oversized cup. The theaters, stadiums, etc sell it because people will pay $1 more for a larger amount that has an incremental cost for the vendor that is significantly less than selling another cup.
In other words, the vendors sell it for no other reason that it's insanely profitable to get people to pay more for something they don't need at all (but feel as if they should want because it seems like a good price for the excess amount). People see that the second 16 ounces cost significantly less than the first 16 ounces, so they feel compelled to buy it in order to get "a good deal". However, most buyers don't consider that the value to them of the second 16 ounces is close to $0, but they're paying close to $1 for it.
Re:Get a refill.. by 0123456 · 2012-05-31 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?
Who is the government to tell people that they're being irresponsible? And, if they are but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Do you really, seriously, truthfully believe that the Nanny State banning big sodas won't prevent soda addicts from... drum roll please... buying two of them?
All this really does is prove that politicians are stupider than people who drink ten liters of soda in a day.
Re:Get a refill.. by operagost · 2012-05-31 03:05 · Score: 2

It astounds me how people make comments like these. It's akin to the other argument about oppressive surveillance: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." I think the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition are already good examples of what can happen when the government is trying to "protect" people from "irresponsible decisions". It's already been pointed out that if it's OK for government to tell you what not to eat, they can also tell you what to eat. Don't like broccoli? Tough-- you're required to eat it twice a week. I could also point out that the cure might be worse that the disease; people are going to switch to diet drinks to get around this issue, and many of the artificial sweeteners have their own issues.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Get a refill.. by Afecks · 2012-05-31 03:08 · Score: 4, Funny

As long as the government is intervening in their every day life by providing a safety net for their irresponsible decisions, how is this a bad thing?
You see, according to the government's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
Re:Get a refill.. by renoX · 2012-05-31 03:09 · Score: 2

> nothing to do with curbing eating habits
False: at work now they have apples on the vending machine and it helps a lot to avoid eating chocolate bars.
Re:Get a refill.. by operagost · 2012-05-31 03:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

You can't read too far into this study. Many people don't want to waste food because they either grew up in a poor household or were taught not to waste by their parents (the "starving kids in Africa hyperbole"). If given a big bag of popcorn, they might try to finish it even if they don't like it because they feel a need to not waste food. Not everyone is just a glutton.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Get a refill.. by oldmac31310 · 2012-05-31 03:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, no. You are incorrect. They are not everywhere, but they certainly aren't rare.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:Get a refill.. by omnichad · 2012-05-31 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not to mention getting one size up is much cheaper than buying two separate drinks for yourself and significant other. Very often at fast food restaurants when trying hard to save money, I'll buy the large drink and split it rather than paying almost twice as much to get two smalls. This "ban" is just making more money for the vendors when people have to buy two separate drinks or two drinks for themselves if they're really addicted.
Re:Get a refill.. by camperdave · 2012-05-31 03:15 · Score: 2

So, for me, serving size doesn't matter, I simply stop when I've had enough.

You're lucky. For me, fullness doesn't matter. I simply must empty the plate.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Get a refill.. by savi · 2012-05-31 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who is the government?
We the people. We the people, as a community, have identified a behavior in the community that is unhealthy and expensive due to healthcare costs. Since, in this case, the community is not a small community in which members can exert direct pressure on each other through personal relationships, the community is exerting pressure in another way. If you think this is new or somehow restricted to governments, then you're not paying attention to all of human history. If you want to be free from the pressures of your community and have no responsibility to other people, you're free to live in the wilderness. This has nothing to do with government. It's fine to disagree with this, but framing it as a "nanny state" issue is misleading. Ever since humans evolved culture (and probably before that), we've developed ways to curb the detrimental behaviors of our fellow community members. People are idiots and they're addicted to sugar. It places a cost on the rest of us. I see no reason why your right to be a lardass trumps the community's need to keep healthcare costs down.
People CAN buy two drinks, but I think quite a few people won't. Humans eat/drink what is set before them without noticing. They won't be trained to desire so much soda if they aren't handed so much to begin with.
Re:Get a refill.. by rezalas · 2012-05-31 03:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

The weight of the people around you is :: drum roll :: none of your business! Yes, if someone works to earn a paycheck, they get to spend it in any way that they want. If a 450lb man wants to buy a 600oz mega-ultra-gulp I guess he's going to die of diabetes, but the transaction is between him and the seller. Similarly if you don't want to be around fat people then don't be around fat people. Leave, walk somewhere else. It isn't like 8 of 10 people standing on the sidewalk are giant tubs of lard. You notice fat people because they aren't the norm and are not nearly as common as people think. If they were, you wouldn't call them "fat", you'd call them "normal".
If you don't like what people spend money on then change careers and become a financial advisor so that the people who care to listen can receive your sage-like advice. Otherwise you need to realize that how people spend their money is between them and the people they spend it with. If you don't like it, well tough shit. Life is hard, get a helmet.
Re:Get a refill.. by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-31 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Reread the comment you replied to; he actually had an excellent point.

Who is the government to tell people that they're being irresponsible? And, if they are but aren't harming anyone else, so what?
Who are these people to demand a safety net? Why do the LIE by saying they're harming no one else, while reaching into everyone else's wallet to pay for their safety net in order to subsidize their own decisions at public expense?

All this really does is prove that politicians are stupider than people who drink ten liters of soda in a day.
No, it proves that people who drink ten liters of soda in a day and then go crying to Nanny Government if the Emergency Room doctor turns them away unless they pay in advance, are hypocrits.
Health micromanagement is not the beginning of Nanny Government; it is the logical conclusion of Nanny Government. You can't say the public is responsible for individual people's health, and then not also give the public power to use force to make individuals be healthy despite their wishes.
When you vote for government responsibility, you are voting for government power. That power will come at the expense of people's liberty. It has to. I'm not saying this is good or evil (though I certainly have an opinion), but it is the reality.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Re:Get a refill.. by DarkTempes · 2012-05-31 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure I agree with this soda ban but it's LOCAL GOVERNMENT so I can't really get upset about Nanny State or the government being too large or anything.
And people being dumb and getting fat IN MASS does harm other people. They drain money and time from society for healthcare costs which has all sorts of side effects (how long you wait for an appointment, availability of appointments, insurance prices, etc).
And it's a nudge, not a prevention. I'm actually kind of ok with this kind of law if it is done right. Do a study beforehand that shows that large servings impact how much people eat, try a law to help people not eat as much, and then do another study to see if the law is actually helping and if not let it expire.
Would you rather they did what they typically do when they don't like when people do something: tax it more?
The perfect world scenario would probably be to educate parents and children but then again in a perfect world people would all have perfect self-control.
Re:Get a refill.. by Samalie · 2012-05-31 03:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Dennis, I didn't know you had a /. account! :)

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Get a refill.. by Jiro · 2012-05-31 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's not an argument for government control over soda, it's an argument against socialized healthcare.
Re:Get a refill.. by MacGyver2210 · 2012-05-31 03:32 · Score: 2

Last I checked, 7/11 was not a theater, stadium, or restaurant. Doubt this will apply to direct retail sale as that would ban 2-Liter bottles, and cases of cans/bottles.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Get a refill.. by cpu6502 · 2012-05-31 03:32 · Score: 2

>>>The law will induce people to drink less soda even though people are allowed to drink as much soda as they want.
(1) No it just means, as someone else pointed out, instead of buying one supersize soda and sharing it with their wife/husband, now people have to buy two and spend more money. This is a regressive tax/law that harms the poor.
(2) I think I'm smart enough to decide if I want large or supersize soda. F off mayor (and all politicians). The purpose of this fucking nation is to allow people to have the freedom to make their OWN choices, not to be dictated from above like the serfs of yesteryear.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Get a refill.. by Penguinisto · 2012-05-31 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most people don't really want the oversized cup.
...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
I often buy the smaller ones (or better, a small bottle), since the soda in a cup would go flat long before I'd even make a dent in, say, a typical 64 oz. demi-bucket of the stuff. Nothing really to do with economic analysis; it's just common sense.
But you know? I do find it hilarious that those who look down on folks who buy a monster-sized $1 soda at the fountain are often the same types that will happily walk to the cooler and pull out a $2 bottle of water for purchase.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Get a refill.. by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-05-31 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, 7-11 is more like a storage facility for toxic food items and expired milk products...
Re:Get a refill.. by geekoid · 2012-05-31 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

A) You completely misunderstand the medical system.
B) Even if we had a good single payer ,medical system, it would STILL be wrong to limit soda size. I can sit next to you and you cna drink all the soda you want and it doesn't impact me.
C) Fat fuckers would also be paying into the system that woudl pay for you thin fuckers medical bills when you fall off you bike.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Get a refill.. by Lumpy · 2012-05-31 03:46 · Score: 3

"Who is the government?
We the people."
Where do you live? Because I'm from the USA and it has not been "WE the People" for as long as I have been alive. WE don't even vote for our own president, we vote for someone who we hope will vote for our choice in president.
And sorry, but the Poor and middle class outnumber the 1% by 99% yet almost everything is DICTATED To us by the 1%.
So I would love to live in your country of "We the people" because it's not found on the american continent.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Get a refill.. by Krojack · 2012-05-31 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think that chick has a weight problem.

Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life and I'm underweight. This ban is going to do nothing but waste even more government money. Can't get a 32-ounce ? Buy two 16-ounce drunks! Will the ban prevent that?

What's next? 1 twinkie a month limit?
Re:Get a refill.. by berashith · 2012-05-31 03:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

actually, there is a known range for this. As the price increases by a certain amount, then there is an expected and consistent amount of people who will quit. This obviously has bounds, but when I smoked and paid attention and cared about this, I was aware of the number of people that were expected to quit with the taxes. It was very relevant in the beginning of Clinton's presidency, when Hillary was tryign to push her health care package, and pay for it on the back of smokers. A very detailed model was needed to find out how many smokers would be there to pay for the system after the price doubled.
Re:Get a refill.. by Mister+Transistor · 2012-05-31 03:58 · Score: 3, Funny

I wouldn't be able to; it's not BIG enough anymore!

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:Get a refill.. by bs0d3 · 2012-05-31 04:29 · Score: 2

more people started smoking again after the taxes became too excessive and became worth the effort for drug dealers to start selling cigarettes
Re:Get a refill.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Me too
Sincerely, the guy sitting behind you, who doesn't want to see your fat ass instead of the screen.
Speak for yourself.

Sincerely,
Sir Mix-A-Lot
Re:Get a refill.. by tbannist · 2012-05-31 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

...and those who don't, won't buy one. Not my place to tell folks what or how they should buy something.
Did you read and understand the message you're replying to?
It's a psychological trick that influences people to buy the larger size. If you had a business, you could try this out. If you increase the price of the small and the medium drink then more people will buy the large size. It should be obvious that as the price difference decreases more people will opt for the larger size. For example, I doubt anyone would be surprised that if you charged the same for small, medium and large, most people would opt for the large size regardless of whether they actually wanted that size.
Part of the reason for the increase in obesity in America may be portion size. I remember seeing a graph that showed that the average portion size of a fast food meal has quadrupled over the last 60 years. The burger, the fries and the drink are each 4 times larger and probably contain 4 times the calories they used to. Combined the common "motherly" requirement that people finish everything on their plate if they want dessert and you have people programmed to get fat. It's not the whole story, but it is an issue.
Having said that, I don't think this is the right way to approach the issue.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Get a refill.. by BasilBrush · 2012-05-31 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

But these kinds of bans are just retarded, you aren't gonna fix obesity like this, the reason we are fat is because many of us are stuck in jobs sitting on ass in front of PCs all day.
There's just as many people with jobs as keyboard jockeys in Europe, but nothing like the obesity rate. So that's not it.
In the UK, where food and drinks become more like the US, obesity rates are rising faster than the rest of Europe. In continental Europe, where there's more real food and less fast food, and more sensible portion sizes, obesity is not much of a problem.
It's not large sodas specifically, but they are certainly part of the large helpings of junk food problem.

If they want folks to lose weight a few pieces of exercise equipment at work and exercise breaks would do more than this.
No. A Big Gulp contains over 300 calories. That's going to take the best part of an hour to work off on an exercise bike. Very few people are going to average that much exercise per day. Even for people that do an hour at the gym, they don't tend to do it every day.
Exercise builds muscle and stamina, and all round fitness. But it's a very inefficient way of losing weight. Very few people lose weight simply through exercise, it needs to be combined with reduced calorie intake. And reduced calorie intake alone will do it.
Re:Get a refill.. by VikingOfNorth · 2012-05-31 06:05 · Score: 2

Taxing the shit out of cigarettes has probably ended no tobacco addictions whatsoever, given that I see a large proportion of poorer people smoking frequently. People will pay for their addictions, whether it is tobacco, hard drugs, or soda. You only stop those addictions when you can show the addicts what it does to them and what kind of life they can lead without it. At that point, it is then up to them.
Don't know about ending addictions, but at least according to WHO (http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas35.pdf), "for every 10 percent increase in
cigarette taxes, there is on average a four percent reduction in consumption". It's of course quite possible that this might be countered by (illegally) importing tobacco from lower-tax regions, but in principle, pricing/taxing greatly influences consumption. Basic rules of capitalism, I suppose.

--
"I'm just here for the achievements"
Re:Get a refill.. by dunkelfalke · 2012-05-31 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you were a couch potato and start working out, you will gain a not so modest amount of muscles.
And if you don't do sports, you won't need a lot of food. Trying to lose weight you'll feel like starving all the time because the food you actually may eat is not really filling. 120 kkal a day is not much at all. If you work out, you can eat more food, thus feeling more comfortable. If you do a good workout, you can even eat the normal daily amount of food and get the calorie deficit purely through sports. Not to speak of other benefits of a workout, like a better working heart, stronger muscles, larger lungs and so on. How much more efficient should it be to satisfy you?
The increased metabolic rate you speak does exist by the way, just not for the rest of the day, maximum for a half an hour or until you eat something. As long as you breathe heavily after a workout or feel your heart beating faster than usual, that's exactly that increased metabolic rate.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Get a refill.. by V-similitude · 2012-05-31 08:15 · Score: 2

http://www.7-eleven.com/Locator.aspx I count about 15 in manhattan. That's pretty rare considering the city's density. I've seen exactly one in 10 years here. But I suppose it depends how you define rare, so whatev.

Educate first. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 02:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Instead of banning something entirely (this is still a "free" country, right?), lets just educate consumers on what they're putting into their bodies. For example, if you want to buy a 64 oz. soda, you live in America, you get your big ass soda. However, put the nutrition info on the cup so you, at the very least, can learn that 64 oz. of Pepsi contains 800 calories, about 1/3 recommended daily intake, and 224 grams of carbs, about 3/4 recommended daily intake. That's disgusting and the problem is nobody realizes how disgusting that is.

Re:Educate first. by Hatta · 2012-05-31 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

That's math, and as everyone knows math has no relation to daily life. Why do they even try to teach us that useless crap?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Educate first. by archen · 2012-05-31 03:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I was about to say the same thing. Those numbers probably don't mean much to most people. If they don't know, the only way for that to happen is to give them context - basically a public health bulletin on what your dietary intake should be, and how this is bad, blah blah blah. You put too much text on it and people won't read it. You put arbitrary numbers on it and people don't know what they mean. Either way people don't care, or you're preaching to the choir. If people wanted to be educated, they would be. It's not like that information is hard to find. Which is unfortunate, but that's the culture we have.
Re:Educate first. by Eponymous+Coward · 2012-05-31 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Education doesn't work and the recommended daily intake numbers have more to do with politics than nutrition.
Every single person ordering 20+ ounces of soda knows that water would be a better choice.
This is a regulation of vendors, not consumers. I predict that within 20 years, the executives of major food companies will start facing scrutiny and lawsuits in the same way that tobacco executives did a few years ago. If current trends continue, the damage that companies like Coca Cola and McDonald's are doing will dwarf anything that the tobacco companies did.
Re:Educate first. by berashith · 2012-05-31 04:00 · Score: 3, Informative

there is another huge problem with what parts of this subject we choose to educate about. Apparently diet sodas are given an exemption here. The amount of healthy that you receive from a diet soda is pretty much nil. Every time I have seen a mention of these types of laws, they always say the full sugared versions are the problem that need to be taxed or banned, but then allowing diet will just have everyone switch to a giant diet soda, and there will be very little gained. If you want to increase health, drink water, not any form of soda.
Re:Educate first. by CannonballHands · 2012-05-31 04:10 · Score: 2

Every single person ordering 20+ ounces of soda knows that water would be a better choice.
Every single person ordering 20+ ounces of soda knows water is a healthier option, but, they don't realize exactly what it means to onsume 800 empty calories on beverages alone. They don't realize that if you're already at a point in your life where you don't flinch at the thought of a 64 oz. Pepsi, you're also most likely consuming well over 4000 calories per day. In other words, if your lifestyle involves large amounts of soda on a regular basis, you can count on large amounts of fast food on a regular basis. These things should be a "treat" and if they're not, well, you'll slowly find yourself sliding up the BMI scale from Overweight to Obese in no time. Not attacking your comment, just adding to it..
Re:Educate first. by element-o.p. · 2012-05-31 07:43 · Score: 2

Nutrition info is on everything, it hasn't helped.
That's because people generally don't track how many calories (or grams of fat or...) they eat throughout the day. I recently started tracking what I eat on loseit.com (no, I have no affiliation with them, other than as a happy user) and was surprised at how easy it is to overeat without realizing it. When I found the Android app that let's me just scan a barcode to add food that I ate, it became stupid-easy to track nutrition information. What I found was that I was consuming at least 500 calories more than I needed per day, and that some foods that I thought were healthy are surprisingly high in calories (like avocados and bagels) while some other foods that I expected to be really unhealthy (cheese danish) are much better than I thought.

--
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?

Nanny State by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The nanny state is here!

Let us know how it goes, NYC!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Nanny State by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wow, shocking, a gentrifying northeastern city where few use cars to get to work and declining polluting industry is slightly ahead of the median of the country in life expectancy...
A question to you is, if you could live to be 100 as opposed to 80, but someone got to tell you what you could and could not do, would that be worth it?

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Nanny State by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 04:10 · Score: 2

LOL, don't know how you could call 18th century US a "nanny state"...
No, I'm not an anarchist, a communist, a socialist, or a Ron Paul fan.
I'm just someone who finds it hilarious that you can buy a cigarette or liquor but not a soda. And no, I'm not in favor of banning cigarettes or liquor (or marijuana, for that matter). I think this proposed ban is clearly crossing a line...

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

We know better than you by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-05-31 02:36 · Score: 2

... how to live your life. That's why we're infallible and immortal.

Re:We know better than you by SimplyGeek · 2012-05-31 04:15 · Score: 2

Your metaphor fails, given that in this case the State is using force to alter consensual behaviour.

Re:Bullshit by SJHillman · 2012-05-31 02:36 · Score: 4, Funny

People already know that soda is unhealthy. They just don't care. Reminds me of Dennis Leary talking about cigarettes... same basic idea.

"There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You fucking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*"

It's a setup for a kickback by DigiShaman · 2012-05-31 02:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just you wait. This whole thing will blow over once he gets his cut from the sugar and corn lobbyists. Then, he will say it was all an unpopular misunderstanding and how he really cares to make NYers voice be heard. Oh, and he really cares about your health too. Win win win all the way for that man.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:How is this legal? by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 02:38 · Score: 4, Informative

It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

hmm by Taibhsear · 2012-05-31 02:40 · Score: 2

If "that's what the public wants the mayor to do" then the public wouldn't be buying ginormous sized beverages and thus there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The fact that they are buying the large sodas means the public wants it. I can see slapping a warning on the side of the containers that say "Hey fatty, you keep drinking this much crap and you're going to die from diabeetus," but a ban seems to infringe on peoples' freedom of choice. (Unlike the bans on foie gras, there's no one torturing corn plants to make the soda.)

Carbonated? by macraig · 2012-05-31 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sooo... JUST carbonated soft drinks? Does that mean he's banning beer, too? The phrase "beer gut" didn't just arbitrarily appear in dictionaries. What about those "fruit juices" spiked with fructose, the nicotine of food additives?

What a hypocrite.

Re:Carbonated? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 04:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Sugar is in *everything*. You get tired of pretty much cheese, meat, and greens after awhile.
That need not be tiresome at all - learn to cook and expand your horizons in terms of what vegetables & meats you've tried. You could eat different vegetables every night for a month and not have a repeat. You can prepare all kinds of meat in all kinds of different (and quite tasty) ways.

Even 'greens' you have to watch which kind.
Instead of just arbitrarily limiting carbs in some foolish Atkins-style diet (it's a fad - it's NOT sustainable, as the diet itself acknowledges, with its cycling phases), go learn about Glycemic Index as it relates to food.
A few easy to remember (but surprisingly hard to follow, if you have no self discipline) rules to dramatically improve your health:
1) Focus on low glycemic index foods.
2) Learn to cook, and make your own meals as much as humanly possible. Eating out should be a rare luxury, not a daily occurrence.
3) Get an hour of physical activity - even if it's just a leisurely stroll - every day.
4) If you think you're hungry, drink a glass of water first. People often confuse "thirsty" with "hungry."
5) Drink water. Limit non-water beverages to 1 cup of coffee and/or 1 glass of alcohol a day. Sodas are a rare treat, like dessert - not a thrice-daily beverage.
6) Get adequate sleep, so you won't have to keep yourself awake by jacking up your blood sugar and caffeine levels in the afternoon.
7) Try to keep your food as close to it's "natural" (harvested) state as possible - breading & deep frying your chicken should be rare; corn on the cob beats popchips by a country mile. Apples are better than apple juice. Oranges are better than orange juice. Lean steak is better than extruded pink slime in a burger shape.

Re:know it all by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-31 02:41 · Score: 2

> Hello. My name is Eliza. How may I help you? * know it all > Ahh. Please continue... * Why don't you ASK YOUR PEOPLE what they want you to do... > Do you really believe I don't ASK my PEOPLE what they want me to do? * and don't just open your fat mouth. > Why are you concerned about my fat mouth?

I think Eliza may have you cornered on this one, AC.

(For the record, the recommendation originates from the NYC Health Department, and Bloomberg points out that you can still easily carry two smaller drinks.)

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-05-31 02:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Any bets on how much hand-wringing about 'big government' 'nanny state' and 'paternalism' there will be now that Bloomberg is targeting large sodas rather than the terrifying marijuana, assassin of youth?

I honestly don't much care for either reefers or Fructose-Extreme Big-Gulp Edition; but I find it endlessly curious how mere time seems to change perception of given public health and public safety crusades. Some city tells smokers to do it outside, or restarauants to cut down on their trans-fats, on pain of some paltry fine and the editorialists are ready to tell you that fascism has finally come to America; but the ones that get hunted down by actual cops and sent to real jail? Apparently not a concern...

The public are sheep by mitchy · 2012-05-31 02:41 · Score: 2

I would think the public prefers education more than legislation... Could be wrong though

What's the new saying? Something like "Democracy triumphed over communism. Corporations triumphed over democracy."

"The public" are sheep. They have been programmed, propagandized and beaten into being sheep. If "the public" were not sheep, then a vast majority of modern problems wouldn't exist.

That's the main problem - or maybe a better way to phrase the question is, "why did it get so bad that a mayor had to step in to take matters into his own hands?" One word answer, and here's the hint: (makes baaa baaa sound)

--
"The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me

Re:The public are sheep by tbannist · 2012-05-31 05:39 · Score: 3, Informative

The saying you are probably looking for is:

“In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy.”
-Fran Lebowitz

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:How is this legal? by ArcherB · 2012-05-31 02:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!

That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.

Oversized? by slashmydots · 2012-05-31 02:42 · Score: 2

At the local Kwik Trip (it's like a northern US 7-11 but way nicer) they have a 56 oz "Mega Buddy" drink which is one up from the "Big Buddy" and "Best Buddy" :-P The difference is, over half their choices of things to put in it are diet or low calorie. I fill up on the 0 calorie Lipton Peach Tea or 5 calorie per serving Minute Made Light. And sometimes I am definitely THAT thirsty. So banning big drinks is idiotic. You can drink all you want of something relatively healthy. In fact, drinking a lot IS healthy.
What does piss me off is Burger King. I went there and decided to get a drink with my meal and they basically don't carry anything I'd drink. I'm thirsty as hell and I'm forced to drink one of their awful choices. I'm not a Pepsi or Coke guy and beyond that, they had nothing diet. That's what they should ban, if anything (and I don't think they should ban anything, fatties should make their own damn decisions. If someone's going to drink 800 calories because they don't think diet tastes good enough, they deserve the consequences).

Yet another reason.... by cayenne8 · 2012-05-31 02:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

...for people to leave NY.

I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).

Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.

Are people so fucking stupid now...they cannot fathom that behavior such as drinking a ton of sugared beverage a day....to wash down nothing but greasy, fat laden burgers...will make them fat? Even if it is the case....why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?

Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?

I've honestly started to wonder, with all the problems we're seeing in modern kids, autism on the rise...so many of them with food allergies (I never heard of anyone almost dying from PB&J sandwiches at school when I grew up, and we ALL ate them)...etc.

Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Yet another reason.... by IceNinjaNine · 2012-05-31 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe we ARE doing too much to protect weak genes in the pool....that might have weeded themselves out in the past....and allowing them to continue to proliferate?
Watch the movie Idiocracy. It's coming, and I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. I'll paraphrase something that I once read (can't come up with a cite, sorry): "I say we take the safety labels off of everything and let nature work itself out."
Re:Yet another reason.... by Jaysyn · 2012-05-31 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
If only it worked like that. Unfortunately, the dumber they get the more they breed. And they always do so before the heart attack or cancer gets them.

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Yet another reason.... by coinreturn · 2012-05-31 03:07 · Score: 2

...for people to leave NY.
I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY for other states to get away from the high taxation there....many going to states with no state income taxes, or estate taxes (like FL).
Now the state is trying to tell you wtf you can drink or eat? Sheesh.
Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?
Re:Yet another reason.... by Dishevel · 2012-05-31 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you quit giving them medical care, checks for their children, welfare, food stamps we would be better off.
I am not saying that we make them starve. But how about we go back to big colorful fake money looking food stamps.
That way there would be a bit of stigma attached. More incentive to get a fucking job.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Yet another reason.... by khr · 2012-05-31 03:19 · Score: 2

I've been seeing reports that over the past few years, there's been an exodus of quite a number of people leaving NY
Yeah, the Onion had an interesting article about the mass exodus from New York City just a couple of weeks before I moved to it.
Re:Yet another reason.... by tnk1 · 2012-05-31 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having lived in the state, it's pretty clear that even people in the City can't tell the difference. I am convinced that they believe that Albany is actually somewhere in Manhattan... in a slightly less prestigious neighborhood than City Hall.
Re:Yet another reason.... by milkmage · 2012-05-31 03:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

"why is it the govts responsibility to protect stupid people from their own stupid actions?" ... who do you think paid for this?
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-10/news/31320495_1_fire-department-rescue-crews-hazmat
"It took the combined efforts of police, fire department, Hazmat unit and EMTs to finally get a 600-pound man in need of medical attention out of his Pennsylvania home." our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)... it's not like this was a 20 minute call either. they had to CUT THE HOUSE AWAY to get the kid out.
600 lbs.. I weigh 160. Imagine having me wrapped around your gut almost 4 times over.
Re:Yet another reason.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 03:29 · Score: 2

Indeed. Was watching Dr. Phil this morning, there were two quite pretty young girls. One just had a baby with an overweight punk 18 y.o. During the course of the pregnancy they had a few fights (as expected from having knocked up your now 16 y.o. girlfriend). So he started dating her best friend. Knocked her up too. He's overweight, greasy looking, not very bright (but actually -did- graduate from high school), no job, no prospects right now, no vehicle to get to a job.
Yet two girls apparently found him attractive enough to procreate with... it boggles the mind.
Idiocracy FTMFW.
Re:Yet another reason.... by MacGyver2210 · 2012-05-31 03:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Mod this guy up. It is ridiculous that the most sanguine point I have seen yet is being modded as flamebait. Perhaps /. is so addicted to soda they can't handle the truth?
Well here it is: Soda, in huge quantities is bad for you. It is not the government's responsibility to save people who - of their own volition - knowingly destroy their bodies with huge quantities of sugar or fat. This is contrary to natural selection and even common sense.
If someone wants to get so fat that they become impotent and are repulsive/can't physically reproduce, please let them. Evolution works if you leave it the fuck alone. Stop protecting the stupid and evil, and let them get what they deserve.
"That guy ran into traffic, got hit by a bus and was killed!" - "Well I see no other option than to ban buses!"

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Yet another reason.... by Lumpy · 2012-05-31 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Yup, that little boy that bangs his head on the wall for fun, He will breed at least 2-3 spawn before the 100+IQ person even get's laid once.
The stupid are outbreeding the smart 5 to 1.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Yet another reason.... by cpu6502 · 2012-05-31 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Make the man pay the cost of the firefighters' bill.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Yet another reason.... by MacGyver2210 · 2012-05-31 03:40 · Score: 2

Yes, people should all start drinking more water and less sugar-fluid.
"You mean like from the toilet?"

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Yet another reason.... by cayenne8 · 2012-05-31 04:40 · Score: 3, Funny

"It took the combined efforts of police, fire department, Hazmat unit and EMTs to finally get a 600-pound man in need of medical attention out of his Pennsylvania home." our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)... it's not like this was a 20 minute call either. they had to CUT THE HOUSE AWAY to get the kid out.
Well, if they'd waited a bit longer, for him to kill himself....waited till he died, they could have just cut him up and take him out in pieces....made it a ONE time job...and much easier on everyone.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Yet another reason.... by HideyoshiJP · 2012-05-31 04:51 · Score: 2

Every time I watch that movie, I criticize myself for thinking that humanity is heading that direction. 'Oh, that's just arrogance or short-sightedness on your part,' I'll think. In spite of this, I always return to this notion that Idiocracy is not terribly far from my vision of the future, but with more masculinity and far less clinical than I imagine the future will be. I wanted to mod you funny instead of insightful - I wanted to.
Re:Yet another reason.... by cayenne8 · 2012-05-31 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that when they get ill, the health system then has to cover that.
Fuck'em....no it does NOT have to cover them.
If people got the inkling that no one else is going to pay your tab for everything, including healthcare...then people my have a fire lit under their asses to work and save to provide for themselves and their families.....and keeping their family size in check so that these needs could be met realistically.
When our country started, up until the entrechment of the nanny-welfare society we find ourselves in currently...it worked this way. You made it, or you didn't....and it wasn't anyones fault by your own.
The US became a great nation due to reliance on the independence and self-reliance of the people....much of the reason it is going downhill, is due to us taking this 'need' for humans to struggle a bit, and be self reliant away.
As I've posted before...I'm not completely without heart. If you are truly infirmed (mentally or physically handicapped) or elderly and not able to work...sure, lets have a safety net. If we reduced the welfare state to JUST this...we'd nip the debt problem in the bud in just a few years. If you're able bodied and don't choose to work....well, fuck'em, I'm not my brothers keeper.
Our govt and society should be here only to set up an environment where you can survive and succeed with sufficient work (and yes, even some luck). It should not be (and wasn't set up to be originally) an entity that protects you from your own dumb ass judgments and actions. It should allow you to succeed, but if you fuck up, well, you should be allowed to fail.
Life is tough....and no, you shouldn't get a trophy just for showing up.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Yet another reason.... by zlives · 2012-05-31 05:22 · Score: 4, Funny

since evolution doesn't exist... i blame god
Re:Yet another reason.... by IceNinjaNine · 2012-05-31 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

But it becomes difficult (for me, anyway) to reject that humanity is headed to Idiocracy due to either a ton of personally observed anecdotes, or in some cases empirical studies: people often eschew well-reasoned arguments (hell, they often ditch any semblance of reason whatsoever) for what they "feel" to be true, or what they "want" to be true.

I'm not saying that people in the past didn't face nuanced or complicated issues, but it seems nowadays that we have a culture wherein it's not cool to be smart, and would you please shut up, SportsCenter is on.
Re:Yet another reason.... by tist · 2012-05-31 06:12 · Score: 3, Funny

...Evolution works if you leave it the fuck alone....
So, do you wear glasses?
Re:Yet another reason.... by Hatta · 2012-05-31 08:09 · Score: 2

Evolution works if you leave it the fuck alone. Stop protecting the stupid and evil, and let them get what they deserve.
Evolution doesn't work on the individual, it works on the entire species. We are using the adaptations that evolution has yielded, (e.g. communication, planning, empathy, etc) to adapt to a new environment (urban post-industrialism). How is that not evolution in action?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Yet another reason.... by Raenex · 2012-05-31 08:33 · Score: 2

Mod this guy up. It is ridiculous that the most sanguine point I have seen yet is being modded as flamebait.
It's kind of pathetic that somebody railing about the intelligence of others can't even form complete sentences that end in periods. I also don't think "sanguine" applies to what he said. You probably meant "salient".
Re:Yet another reason.... by billius · 2012-05-31 08:44 · Score: 2

I think we do and we should continue to espouse sound eating principals and practices.

Why would you say that? The information is freely available. Your logic would seem to suggest that actively encouraging people to be healthier would also somehow circumvent natural selection, because we would be rewarding the people who were too lazy to figure it out for themselves. Of course, this is all a moot point since your understanding of natural selection (or at least the way you are trying to apply natural selection to this issue) is deeply flawed.

However, the article is talking about the govt. actually banning the USE of a food (in this case a beverage) that isn't really healthy for you.

No, it's about banning sodas larger than 16 fl. oz in restaurants. If you want to drink 32 fl. oz of soda (the size of a large at McDonald's), you still can do it, it'll probably just cost you a little bit more (if you buy two) or take a bit more time (if you get a refill). It is a very mild way to nudge people into drinking less soda by making them think a bit more about how much they're drinking.
It's pretty clear that you lack even a high school level understanding of natural selection and didn't read the article at all. How your comment relating the concept you don't understand to the article you didn't read was modded "+5 Insightful" is frankly beyond me.

And what exactly did we expect? by argStyopa · 2012-05-31 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

When our society seemingly turns to government to protect us from the consequences of our stupid decisions*, eventually we end up with a government that is going to want to control our every decision. It makes sense in a world where the government subsidizes your health care, that the government gets a voice in your unhealthy choices.

*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"

It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.

Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.

As they would say in Firefly: "Nee mun doh shr sagwa".

--
-Styopa

Re:And what exactly did we expect? by MightyYar · 2012-05-31 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

*to wit:
- I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion
- I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them
- I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment
- I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life
- I have a $25,000/year job but signed for a mortgage on a $500,000 home that I now understand I can't afford, the gov't should pay to help me renegotiate
- I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investments, the gov't should pay to keep me running because I'm "too big to fail"
Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I feel that you are way off-base on some of the justifications for the programs you deride.
Government support for programs like daycare are for the good of the child, not the parent (though the parent may benefit as a byproduct). It is not the child's poor decisions that landed him with shitty parents, and the child should not be condemned to a miserable upbringing. The same thought process that leads to public education is what leads to things like child subsidies.
Addiction programs are not for the good of the addict, but for the good of society. Addicts spread disease and crime. If someone wants a ticket to a rehab center, that's a bargain for society.
The mortgage default situation was caused in part by the government's 30-year mortgage programs. While there is probably some merit in an argument that government should not have gotten into housing in the first place, they are there now and need to clean up their mess. If renegotiating mortgages is a cost-effective way to clean up, then pragmatically I have to support it.
Too big to fail is a similar situation. I'm not willing to watch the entire economy completely melt down just to uphold an ideal. The government had to step in, and where the criticism should be aimed is at the politicians for not having the capacity to correct the underlying problems. If it's any consolation, the stockholders of the bailed-out banks took a serious bath. If you were the unlucky stockholder of Citibank in 2007, your stock is now worth about 5% of what it was. Bank seizure would not have really changed things much for the stockholders, and the government would have been stuck with their toxic assets. Instead, the government made a small profit...

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:And what exactly did we expect? by artor3 · 2012-05-31 03:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

So let's hear your solutions...
-I had unprotected sex, I should go get a clothes hanger stuck in me in some back alley, and die of an infection if it doesn't work
-I had kids I can't support, they should be forced to live a life of squalor and misery for my mistake
-I'm an addict, I should continue to spiral downwards until I die in the streets
-I made shitty choices and now I'm poor, I should be forced to turn to crime to avoid starvation
-I have a $25,000/year job but can't afford my mortgage, the government should watch the entire economy go down in flames rather than help me out
-I'm a bank and I've made a catastrophic series of worthless investment, the government should stand aside while others suffer horribly for my actions. Meanwhile I'll retire in luxury, since I've already collected millions in bonuses.
The government's job is to promote the common good. That sometimes means helping people who've made mistakes. You seem to be more interested in making people suffer for them. I wonder if your tune would change if you or someone you cared about ever slipped up. But no, that would never happen. You don't make mistakes. You're a god.
Re:And what exactly did we expect? by Dripdry · 2012-05-31 03:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

While what you mention is somewhat true, what you fail to mention is the opposite: The eras before we created a social net were horrifying by today's standards. One bad crop season, or loss of a job, or getting on the wrong person's bad side could easily leave you a starving wretch (can still happen, but less common).
Also, it's not government that's running a lot of this, it's corporations. I'm sure the corn lobby is loosening up as their dollars are less effective than the military and IP racket these days, and Biggie B (as his friends call him) in teh Big Apple has to do something to make him look good after all this police nonsense and Occupy.
Look, I don't disagree with you that government, in some ways, is getting its mitts on some things it shouldn't. However, maybe looking at what risks government should cover and what they shouldn't ought to merit consideration, not just making a statement implying that you're somehow superior because you happened to be in the right circumstances to make "good" life choices (I assume, though I may be wrong). Check out stuff on the sociology of deviance, I suspect you'll find the subject infuriating to what sounds like your fairly uncompassionate world view (this does not include too big to fail. we can all agree that was pure crime)
BTW..... why don't we worry about the incredible amount of money spent blowing up brown people and spying on and jailing our own citizens before we start moralizing and saying we shouldn't help our Fellow Man because of "blah-di-blah" and then quoting a stupid fucking TV show that too many people worship anyway.

--
-
Re:And what exactly did we expect? by nine-times · 2012-05-31 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

It has been going on at all levels of American life since at least the Great Society programs, and we as voters have cheerfully voted consistently for the government to 'cushion' more and more of life's hard knocks from our sensitive existences.
Yeah, I mean, look at all these people who want to be cushioned by society. Like NYC banning soda. Or NYC having a health department that makes sure there are no rat feces in your food. I mean, let that be between me and the restaurant. If there's a restaurant that has rat feces in it, I just won't go there anymore. You don't need a health department.
And then they have laws that are prevent landlords from kicking deadbeats out of their apartments. Like, who cares that you've lived in your apartment for 20 years, the price of rent has gone up old lady! You can find another place to live. Just live within your means!
Oh, and let's not forget about the fire department. I mean, if you don't want to install sprinklers and other fire protection in your apartment building, that's your own fault, and you're the one who's going to burn alive. If you want to live in an apartment with sub-standard fire protection, that's your choice. We should all do our own research before you buy into these things.
Don't even get me started on the police. They're always butting into everyone's business. I know, you're going to say, "But what if I get robbed?!" That's why guns need to be legal. We should all be settling these matters ourselves. And traffic lights? Why does the government feel the need to get involved in how I drive my car?
This is all just the nanny state running amok. Look, I test all of my kids toys to make sure the manufacturer isn't using lead-based paint. I do all my own scientific research on the medical procedures I undergo, so I don't need Mr. Government telling me which treatments are effective. I built a bunker under my house and I have a small arsenal in there-- I don't need your nanny-state army to protect me. We should all just go our own way.
Re:And what exactly did we expect? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-05-31 05:26 · Score: 2

Oh hey, look! Edge cases that appeal to emotion. Two can play that game. To wit:
- I was raped, I can just have a child (or twins, or triplets) I don't have the money for or am ready to care for. Oh, and they'll go make some fine criminals.
- I was fired from my job when the bankers decided it was more lucrative to just liquidate the company, my kids can now go play in the sewer
- I'm an addict from medication received for an operation gone wrong, I can just go cold turkey and lose my job during the down period
- I had some bad breaks in life, I should be thankful that I can squat underneath a bridge with 30 other losers
- I have a 50k a year job and signed for a 100k year mortgage, but the bank that signed the loan is going under, so I'm going to lose everything
- I'm a banker who made catastrophic investments, and I should be able to take down the entire economy while I retire on my bonuses
You're willfully ignoring the lessons of history just to fuel your little libertarian flame of faith.
As they would say in Firefly: " Go suck it".

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

in before the "freedom!" mel gibson imitators by circletimessquare · 2012-05-31 02:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

there's two definitions of freedom:

the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"

the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"

for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot

the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else

likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above

please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Random Searches by heidkamp · 2012-05-31 02:48 · Score: 2

Mayor Bloomberg also announced that police would be "stop and frisk"ing individuals with a BMI over 30 to search for contraband oversized sodas.

Re:How is this legal? by alen · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

its legal because people like me who rarely go to the doctor and dont have these problems support it because we don't want to pay for your endless supply of drugs, sleep aids and other nonsense

Re:How is this legal? by TWX · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Soda is not my religion.

It is my addiction though.

I've switched over time from 128oz of Mountain Dew a day to a pair of 12oz Mountain Dew Throwback cans a day. I still end up occasionally bowing to the fountain soda in the combo meal at lunch time, but I've also started bringing my lunch four out of five days a week.

With no other changes, no increase in exercise, no major effort other than to bring to eat only what I want to carry around with me in a cooler, I've lost weight. When I have the wherewithal to keep to it (it's hard and I have to occasionally get lunches out when I get tired of cold cuts) it works well, saves me money, and helps me to live better.

We're addicted to food. Unlike most addictions, we can't simply stop eating though. We're surrounded by food that used to be special occasion food. Deserts, deep-fried foods loaded with spices, an overabundance of meats. How the hell are you supposed to eat right when there are almost no options to eat right?

I'd restrict the cup size. I wouldn't go 16oz, probably more like 24. I would ban free refills once one has left the premises. If you're in the restaurant you can continue to get your free refills like normal. If you're at a convenience store, either you bring your own cup to get more than 24oz, or if the store allows it, you drink your drink and refill on the spot.

A simple ban on fast food joints and convenience stores selling cups larger than a certain size will do a lot to curtail it, and won't restrict patrons from larger cups if they bring their own cup.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:How is this legal? by Baloroth · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 2

Never mind the people who actually pay the bill are the taxpayers, not the government. But most people never seem to remember that, maybe because most of the people who will end up paying the most are either the rich (right now, and note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, necessarily, it just makes it a lot easier to get behind government spending when it isn't coming out of your pocket) or the young (later, when the country is $100 trillion in debt, which obviously is a bad thing).

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton

This is on par with other moronic bans by mapkinase · 2012-05-31 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Banning plastic bags in LA was one of them, now NYC banning soda...

NYC ban is a disgrace epitomizes nanny state transition US is undergoing, stomping at elementary liberties: including a freedom to eat whatever I want, and private transaction between consenting adults: not about selling drugs, not about exchanging sexual favors, Taliban literature, arms, bombs or anything else, just an item of food.

Where are all the Niemoller loudmouths?

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.

Re:How is this legal? by andydread · 2012-05-31 02:51 · Score: 2

This is the most alarmist rubbish i've seen on Slashdot today. LOL@ governmet taking over your health care. Yeah death panels and all lol. If you are referencing the Affordabe Healthcare Act then that is not free health care you have to pay. The emergency room freeloaders will now have to pay their way rather than me paying for their healthcare. I think i like it that they are forced to pay for their own healthcare thank you very much.

Why not just ban mandatory soda purchase by Paul+Carver · 2012-05-31 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

This seems like it goes too far. I'd rather just see a ban on mandatory soda purchases. All those places that require you to buy a big gulp the moment you enter the door and refuse to allow you to leave until you've drunk it.

Oh, wait, you mean there aren't any places like that? We're only talking about banning voluntary purchases? Well we don't need the government to do anything in that case. If "the people" want to stop voluntary purchases they can do that themselves with no government effort or expense at all.

Mission accomplished! Good job mayor.

Watch the "Weight of the Nation" by Marrow · 2012-05-31 02:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its interesting that the bad food is so cheap, in part, because the ingredients are subsidized by the US government. In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you. Or the pricing structure makes it too expensive.
Not only that, but farmers are going out of business trying to grow stuff that is good to eat. They are not eligible for the subsidies. So they learn to grow stuff that is bad for us instead. Its also greatly slanting the system towards huge factory farms.

If he wants to fix something, put a high state tax on Federal farm subsidies. And put the proceeds towards opening markets for healthy foods. Level the field.

Re:Bullshit by TWX · 2012-05-31 02:53 · Score: 2

Except Leary actually quit smoking for quite some time, and didn't restart until it proved an easy habit to resume amidst personal tragedy.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:How about some evidence by swb · 2012-05-31 02:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

That a large cup of non-diet soda contains a large quantity of sugar/HFCS is not up for debate, this is an established fact.

That sugars produce an insulin response is not up for debate and has been scientifically established for nearly 100 years. That insulin is the primary hormonal driver of fat accumulation has been scientifically established since the 1960s.

We know this and have known this for for nearly 50 years. It's less open to debate than evolution, and that's a closed subject.

Banning is probably the wrong approach from an economics perspective, and the details are poor, too -- allowing juice? That's like saying smoking menthols is better than smoking non-menthols. Metabolically there is zero difference, and in many ways juice is much worse due to the fructose content.

Not needed in NYC! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 02:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you have ever been to NYC, you'll see that the obesity epidemic is not nearly as visible there as in the suburbs. People actually *walk* to get places in NYC, and therefore get exercise whether they planned to or not. And you actually have options as to what to drink in NYC. It is much easier and socially acceptable to have good lifestyle habits in the city.

Here in the suburbs, we have no sidewalks and it is near suicide to consider walking or bicycling on the roads. All the "restaurants" are crappy pizza joints with your choice of Coke or Pepsi or Gatorade (sugar, sugar, or sugar). I have to drive 10 minutes away to find a safe place to walk or bike, and have to have a gym membership in order to get any meaningful exercise. I'd love to live in a city, any city.

Re:How is this legal? by tgd · 2012-05-31 02:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's all good until the fatties want free healthcare.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner!

That's problem with government funded health care. Whoever pays the bills gets to make the rules! If you let government take over your health care, you are giving the government control over your health.

Society, and the government as a proxy of society, already funds healthcare because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay and let them rot and die. (Or, I suppose, the other way around.)

As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.

Re:How is this legal? by justin12345 · 2012-05-31 02:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually fatties live longer.

Google "obesity paradox".

--
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.

Save us... from us. by sacdelta · 2012-05-31 03:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.

A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.

--

Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

Re:Libertarians wouldn't do this to you by lxs · 2012-05-31 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't you mean:
When a libertarian wants to do something, he posts about it on Slashdot.
When a liberal wants to do something, the Libertarian quotes Ron Paul.
When a libertarian doesn't want to do something, he whines about it on Slashdot.
When a liberal doesn't want to do something, the libertarian loudly protests that his freedoms are being taken away.

Re:How is this legal? by Dancindan84 · 2012-05-31 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, that's why here in Canada where we have had government funded healthcare since the 60s I have to go get my lunch at Kentucky Steamed Rice & Vegetables...

No wait. This is the country where we have our fries covered in cheese and gravy.

--
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde

There they go again! Bastards. by Cajun+Hell · 2012-05-31 03:10 · Score: 5, Funny

TL;DNR but I can tell you, this would never happen in an Android market.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump

Food desert myth debunked by SuperKendall · 2012-05-31 03:13 · Score: 2

In some neighborhoods, its impossible to purchase food that is actually good for you

That is a lie.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Food desert myth debunked by swb · 2012-05-31 04:46 · Score: 2

The larger problem is that the food "they" call good for you isn't necessarily good for you. Most of these people are still operating under the failed low-fat diet paradigm and will count the availability of rice, pasta and breads as "good for you" food that is available.
It also doesn't take into account the cost of fresh meats and the impact this has on low income food budgets and how they will supplement with refined carbohydrates like pasta and rice.
Nor does it take into account the unhealthy nature of supposedly healthy food which has been pumped up with high fructose corn syrup.

Re:How is this legal? by rich_hudds · 2012-05-31 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

You do know that healthcare in the US costs about twice as much as say the UK where everybody is covered by the government including unemployed fatties?

The actual outcomes are pretty similar but in the UK you just don't worry about your 'cover' at all. It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.

I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?

HFCS's got what plants CRAVE by Thud457 · 2012-05-31 03:16 · Score: 2

Dude, you mean WATER, like in the toilet?!
gross!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Want to do something? by brian0918 · 2012-05-31 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Want to curb consumption of high fructose corn syrup? You can start by removing all government subsidy of the corn industry.

TO: Fatties FROM: Smokers by CanHasDIY · 2012-05-31 03:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Welcome to the world of second class citizenship, Chunk.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Diet Soda by Tokah · 2012-05-31 03:21 · Score: 2

"The ban would restrict the sale of sodas to no more than 16-ounces, and would apply to both fountain and bottled drinks. It would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy or alcoholic drinks. Sodas sold at grocery and convenience stores would be exempt as well."

What a Vapid Post by eldavojohn · 2012-05-31 03:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think your cause and effect logic is deeply flawed.

I had unprotected sex, the govt should pay for my abortion

The government does not propose to pay for abortion because people should be able to have sex. The logic arises from studies conducted that suggest that legalized and subsidized abortion results in fewer unwanted children and therefore less crime. While you might debate that, the reasoning is that it's cheaper for society to pay for an abortion than it is to have a criminal interred on and off for life. Are you against taxpayer dollars being used to teach contraception in schools? What about tax dollars to hand out free condoms to those most at risk? Subsidizing abortions is a step further in that direction. It is not designed to give people the ability to have sex without protection.

I had kids I can't support, the gov't should pay to help me care for them

Are you aware of what a "dependent" is on a tax form? Again, it's cheaper for society to issue welfare and food stamps than to deal with the societal harms that come from malnourished children and the state assuming control over a child. What exactly is your ideal scenario in this case? That we have street urchins that occasionally die in our streets? That we have social services taking care of tens of thousands more children?

I'm an addict, the gov't should pay for my treatment

Again, you seem to imply that the government is being lobbied by the addicts. Instead it is the cost/benefit of dealing with addicts that have already developed dependencies on illegal addictive substances. You implement awareness programs with taxpayer dollars and the final unfortunate step is helping these people control their addictions so they're not mugging or killing people for money. A lot of these people have to support their habits with crime. Our jails are already overcrowded so the alternate step is to try to treat them and keep them from engaging in such behavior. Again, what is your ideal scenario? That you shake your finger at an addict and say "Welcome to the school of hard knocks, now go beat someone for money for your habit so you can spend the rest of your life in jail where I can pay more money for you to live."

I made shitty life choices and now I'm poor, the gov't should pay for me to have a decent life

Right, because everyone who is poor is poor because of shitty life choices and they should starve for those choices. We have the ability to provide them basic food and subsidize their housing but your ideal scenario is what exactly? You do know that they do not live like kinds and queens?

Welcome to your self-designed Nanny State.

If the alternative is crime ridden neighborhoods, I'll take a little bit of a nanny state. You people that demand one extreme over the other are really annoying and short sighted. Did you know that buildings have to make fire code in order to be constructed? God, what a nanny state we've found ourselves in! Why aren't we working to remove any sort of building and safety codes? PROTIP: A happy medium exists somewhere in between the extremes. When society's total cost is drastically lower to implement a nanny state law, we start to weigh the pros and cons.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:How is this legal? by TWX · 2012-05-31 03:25 · Score: 2

At least the FDA ruled against the food lobby when they attempted to get HFCS renamed to "Corn Sugar".

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:nanny state in the making by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-31 03:25 · Score: 2

It's all or nothing, buddy. You want the nude supermodels you gotta take the nude Walmartoids.

Hey, it'll toughen you up. Spend some time down south and you'll emerge like a Spartan!

State != state by tepples · 2012-05-31 03:27 · Score: 2

Do you not know the difference between New York City and the state of New York?

Yes, and I also know the difference between a state, meaning a first-level political subdivision, and a state, meaning the entity with a monopoly on violence.

Re:Being irresponsible harms other family members by Penguinisto · 2012-05-31 03:27 · Score: 2

...which is their problem, and not yours, mine, or the government's.

Oh, but then there's that welfare/medicaid thing, yes? Well, maybe if the government got out of the business of parenting humanity from womb to tomb, this wouldn't be such a big problem, now would it?

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:How is this legal? by J'raxis · 2012-05-31 03:30 · Score: 2

Yup. The government wanted to "help" American corn farmers so they subsidized HFCS until it supplanted imported cane sugar. Now everyone's fat. And since they "helped" us a couple years ago by mandating health insurance and creating a taxpayer-funded system for the poor, now everyone's health is everyone else's business. So they want to "help" us all again by banning large-quantity HFCS-laden soft drinks, "helping" people become healthier and "helping" lower the burden on the health care system.

Isn't the government so helpful?

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Re:Who buys pop at these places anyways? by tepples · 2012-05-31 03:32 · Score: 2

People buy drinks inside because it is considered trespass to bring your 2-liter soda onto the premises of an entertainment venue.

Re:Diet Soda by Teppy · 2012-05-31 03:35 · Score: 3, Funny

So selling 72-ounce slurpees is fine, as long as you add a shot of vodka?

Narrow minded focus by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-05-31 03:42 · Score: 2

Yeah, soda is bad. A big container of sugar and chemicals that people assume is required to quench thirst.

But isolating one food product is not going to cure obesity.

So what, large soda drink sizes will be banned, but still allowed are mega-Venti 1 gallon sized quad-quad cream sugar extra foam and whip cream topped, caramel and chocolate syrup triple espresso infused coffees with a side of 10" radius cupcake and a oversized bagel with extra schmear is not a factor in obesity? And that is just a precursor to some street-meat based meal at noon and several pounds worth of ground beef and freedom-fries for supper.

Fatties will find their vices regardless of what form of unconstitutional bullshit a NYC mayor imposes

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.

Re:How is this legal? by Penguinisto · 2012-05-31 03:46 · Score: 2

As long as society feels obligated to help those in need, society should feel absolutely justified in putting strict limitations on the ways that people can take advantage of that.

So why not place those restrictions only on those receiving assistance? It wouldn't take much to restrict EBT/Food-Stamp purchases to only vegetables, certain meats (turkey, chicken), and such. As a bonus, anyone receiving government-supplied healthcare (medicaid, Obamacare, whatever) be restricted to a certain diet for as long as they remain on it, and that any violation of that diet equals denied services.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:How is this legal? by geekoid · 2012-05-31 03:47 · Score: 2

Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Fed government does NOT pay for abortion by bigtrike · 2012-05-31 03:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV. I would, in fact, support free abortions. I'd rather have someone irresponsible abort a kid that they can't afford to take care of instead of being robbed by that kid or having taxpayers pay tens of thousands of dollars per year for his prison time.

The problem is that we're all connected and unless you want to be responsible for providing your own roads, drinking water, electricity and defending your compound that is unsafe to leave, we need at least some level of government and socialization. Medical care in that world seems kind of pointless, as you would have no great methods of contacting a provider (no eminent domain to build a network of telephone wires, radio waves would be useless without a central body to set up channels), and they might not be able to reach you quickly through a patchwork of private roads. And you'd better hope you have something worth bartering for care without a nanny state to set up and maintain a common currency. But at least there would be no government to steal your money for taxes or control your actions...just robbers, pirates, criminals.

I'm not saying the government should encourage people to be lazy by any means, just that there are indirect benefits to providing some services.

What natural selection? by denzacar · 2012-05-31 04:27 · Score: 2

Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection...

That went out the window with the invention of fire and pointy sticks.

Or do wolfs and bears still regularly eat members of your family?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

Re:WE would be nothing of the sort... by cayenne8 · 2012-05-31 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know....we had plenty of POOR in this country over the years before we came to this nanny state we have now....if you didn't take care of yourself back then, or your family didn't...you just didn't make it.

We never had any uprisings back then....why would we have them now? Back in the day...no one owed you anything, not even the government, and we got along just fine. Most people, took this as incentive to work their asses off to survive...and even to succeed. Why should it be any different now?

I mean, I'll go for a little modernization...if you're infirmed or old, and just can NOT work, ok...safety net there.

But if you are able bodied at all....well, you must work, and if you fucked up, and had too many kids....well, you need to figure something out. Maybe after awhile with the govt NOT coming to give everyone welfare, etc....and it might take a generation for this lesson to sink in....but after awhile, these idiots might just figure out they need to quit having unprotected sex, having kids...because no one is going to pay them to stay at home, watch tv and breed even more. Let's end this vicious cycle of poverty and dependence which just feeds upon itself and breeds generations that know nothing MORE than the welfare system.

Would it be tough? Sure...but, you have to start some where. We in the US weren't like this originally....we need to go back to that.

And for those that refuse to work and make their own livings...well, lets also turn the clock back, and stop locking people up for ingesting whatever chemical they want for recreation. That would free up TONS of jail space for those few that refuse to learn a lesson and attempt to use crime as a means to earn a living.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

sugar by JustNiz · 2012-05-31 05:34 · Score: 2

I'm a Brit who emigrated to the US about 10 years ago.
One thing I found very hard to get used to was that the taste of nearly all food in the US is sickeningly sweet. It makes it all taste the same as you can hardly even taste the natural flavor of the food itself.
There's sugar (presumably actually corn syrup) in large quantities in EVERYTHING, even stuff thats meant to be natural or savory like vegetables, nuts or cheese. Most US bread tastes like cake to me, instead of wheaty or nutty like it does back home.
You don't (re)notice until you leave and come back, but trust me the first couple of days of eating any food in the US tastes horrible.
Then your get acclimatized as your taste buds and waistline get assimilated into the Corn Lobby collective's master plan.

Re:sugar by Chelloveck · 2012-06-01 03:19 · Score: 2

I'm a Brit who emigrated to the US about 10 years ago. One thing I found very hard to get used to was that the taste of nearly all food in the US is sickeningly sweet. It makes it all taste the same as you can hardly even taste the natural flavor of the food itself.
I'm still boggling at the idea of a Brit critiquing food. You are aware that there are preparation methods apart from boiling, right?

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.

Healthier slaves by coldsalmon · 2012-05-31 05:40 · Score: 2

"An employer, let us say, pays a seamstress twopence a day, and she does not seem to thrive on it. So little, perhaps, does she thrive on it that the employer has even some difficulty in thriving upon her. There are only two things that he can do, and the distinction between them cuts the whole social and political world in two. It is a touchstone by which we can—not sometimes, but always—distinguish economic equality from servile social reform. He can give the girl some magnificent sum, such as sixpence a day, to do as she likes with, and trust that her improved health and temper will work for the benefit of his business. Or he may keep her to the original sum of a shilling a week, but earmark each of the pennies to be used or not to be used for a particular purpose. If she must not spend this penny on a bunch of violets, or that penny on a novelette, or the other penny on a toy for some baby, it is possible that she will concentrate her expenditure more upon physical necessities, and so become, from the employer's point of view, a more efficient person. Without the trouble of adding twopence to her wages, he has added twopenny-worth to her food. In short, she has the holy satisfaction of being worth more without being paid more.

This Capitalist is an ingenious person, and has many polished characteristics; but I think the most singular thing about him is his staggering lack of shame. Neither the hour of death nor the day of reckoning, neither the tent of exile nor the house of mourning, neither chivalry nor patriotism, neither womanhood nor widowhood, is safe at this supreme moment from his dirty little expedient of dieting the slave."
--G. K. Chesterton, _Utopia of Usurers_

Yes, it does by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-05-31 05:55 · Score: 2

It is currently against the law for the government to pay for abortions. The money given to planned parenthood is for women's health initiatives, such as preventing women from getting cervical cancer from HPV.

That's so sweetly naive and incredibly wrong. My wife and I are married and share a joint checking account. There's no difference between "my money" and "her money" at any important level; even if we kept track of who contributed how much, it still gets stirred into the same pot. It's not like I take her to dinner with "my money" and she buys clothes with "her money", regardless of whether we pretend that's the case.

It's the same with Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, they have a total budget. The government pays for non-abortion services, but the end result is that by financing those services, PP is freed up to spend some of its other-sourced money on abortions.

I'm sure that Planned Parenthood has a spreadsheet that demonstrates that abortion funds and non-abortion funds are separate. That's nice. But realistically, it's all drawn from the same pool.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Advantages to the Ban by tompaulco · 2012-05-31 06:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

The other is that soda pretty much *dissolves your bones*. Google it. It's acidic as hell. Even though it tastes so good.
Not any more acidic than apple juice, and far less acidic than cranberry juice. Lemonade, depending on the strength, can be even worse than cranberry juice.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:WE would be nothing of the sort... by Hatta · 2012-05-31 07:53 · Score: 4, Informative

We never had any uprisings back then....

Seriously? Are you just completely ignorant of US labor history?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Not the governmnet's job by 24-bit+Voxel · 2012-05-31 17:18 · Score: 2

Here's an idea... mandatory time and a half for all hours over 40 regardless of managerial status. That oughta do it, and solve any unemployment problems that they have to boot.

I'm a bigger guy these days due to all the hours. When I work 40 hours a week, within a year I'm at my target weight and I don't do anything special. But if I have to do 80-100 hour weeks all the time, I just blow up because there's no time to do anything else. I've see similar results with friends I work with.

I might not buy a big gulp if I know I don't have to work for 20 hours straight and need it to stay awake. I tend to get grapefruit juice if I just want a beverage, but soda if I need artificial alertness.

Re:Gosh, do I agree on the low-fat paradigm failur by swb · 2012-06-01 02:06 · Score: 2

People always accuse doctors of having a God complex, and in many ways the low fat paradigm is the result of that.

Ancel Keys made some observations and weak correlations about dietary fat and cholesterol being related to heart disease in the mid 1960s. This was fertile ground for researchers and clinicians and many of them staked their careers on it and due to the fact that they could never quite get their studies to prove the relationship between heart disease and dietary fat & cholesterol (and still haven't!) they were able to string this out into an entire career.

Once you have careers and reputations on the line, you have a self-sustaining paradigm -- nobody wants to come out after 30 years of being dedicated to this idea to say "Gee, we were wrong all along." So they never promote research that questions their beliefs -- and that's probably putting it mildly, they actively attack and discount it.

Despite nearly 40 years of this advice, though, obesity is skyrocketing and the low fat paradigm is starting to crumble.

I think there's another unspoken element in this, and that's an American cultural predisposition to promote paradigms which are judgmental and involve denial of pleasure. Certainly by the mid 1960s, overall economic success had made meat an everyday staple for most Americans. It tasted good and made you feel good -- so a solution to heart disease and obesity was penance -- don't eat what you enjoy and what makes you feel good. And if you don't get thin on low-fat? Why you're not trying hard enough -- not enough exercise, not enough self well, it's a weakness of character problem!

Part of why they reacted so severely to Atkins was that he never preached that -- he said "Hey, eat as much of that steak as you like! Put a tab of butter on it! Eat until you're full, don't go hungry!" This was like religious blasphemy, not only did it contradict the fact of low-fat proponents, it contradicted the morality of their position.

Slashdot Mirror

Soda Ban May Hit the Big Apple

140 of 1,141 comments (clear)